Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />the ~ovar Plat. <br /> <br />~ere wa~,, a ~ot:[on by Councilmember Sorteber9 and ~eoonded by Councf~lme~ber <br />Schlueter to approve Kovar PKeltmlrmry Plat; Mr. $chnelle requested that the <br />preliminary plot approval be tn Kesolution form; Councllmembers Sorteberg <br />Schlueter wtthdre~ their motion. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich read the proposed resolution. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Sorteber9 ~ seoonded by Councilm~rd~er Sch]ueter to <br />adopt Resolution ~85-66 which is a resolution appro¥in9 preliminary plat of <br />Kovar Addition oontingent upon the developer c~mplyin9 with the tt~ns as <br />described in City Engineer letter dated February 14, 1985 addressed to <br />Planning and Zoning Con~ission ~airman Ken Peterson on this subject; except <br />that the last sentence in paragraph 5 of that letter shall be deleted and in <br />it's place substitute the following sentence: "However, the developer is <br />providing a plan relating to the accesses from Highway ~10, which plan shall <br />be subject to City Engineer's approval and which plan shall be oontained in <br />the develolTnent agref~nent, which agreement shall be approved by City Engineer <br />and City Council." (Please refer to resolution file for Resolution ~85-66). <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor IHeitman, Cbunci]members Sorteberg and <br />$chloeter. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilm~rs Reimann and Cox. <br /> <br />Motion by Councilmember Schlueter and seoonded by Councilmember Sorteberg to <br />receive petition from Mr. Kovar for service road improv~snents in Kovar Plat. <br /> <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Mayor Seitman, Oouncilmembers Sorteberg and <br />Schlueter. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmembers Reimann and (3ox. <br /> <br />Staff Re~ort On Sea3~atino: <br /> <br />City Engineer Raatikka stated that all of the proposed sealcoating improvement <br />project areas are in need of the sealooating improvements. <br /> <br />No action by Council. <br /> <br />~ D]scuss{on Of Assessino AlternativesFor Storm Drainaqf D]str]ct <br /> <br />~here was a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed storm drainage <br />improvements to Flintwood I arid Flintwood II and the possibility of a petition <br />being submitted opposing the project and delaying Flintwood II develol~nent for <br />one more year. <br /> <br />Mr. Berg pointed out that storm sewer improv~nents to Flint~9c~ II were <br />approved by a previous Council. <br /> <br />Mr. Raatikka added that the present resolution in process was a result of the <br />City's request for oversizin§ of the storm sewer pipe to include Flint~a:~d I. <br /> <br />Councilmenber $chluter noted that even if flint~x~ I opposes their assessment <br />and is deleted from the project, the l'.cc'd for piping oversizing is not <br />negated. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich stated that if Flintwood I is deleted from the project, <br /> March 7, 1985 <br /> <br />l~age 7 of 9 <br /> <br /> <br />